The Great Imperial vs. Stormcloak Debate

[Gabryal]

Parts of the Empire had been occupied though, specifically in the Far East, no Hitler didn't capture London but he tried. Hitler did occupy France and had the USSR on the ropes at the point that the British Empire resolved itself to fight to the last Hitler wasn't losing anywhere, it was winning on every front.

 

However I do think you're missing the point, in one case an Empire in dire straights chose not to fight evil, in the other it did. Churchill said that they'd continue to fight even if the Islands themselves were occupied.

 

They were prepared to go on fighting forever if necessary, they had courage and conviction. Things that the Empire did not have. It also misses the second point I was making.

 

Do you think that a Churchillian British Empire, with King George on the Throne, would ever under any circumstance allow the Gestapo or the SS access to any part of their empire by treaty? Do you think they'd ever sign an agreement outlawing the religious practices of their citizens? At the time of the speech given in part below, Britain was outnumbered and outmatched in every possible way. Defeat seemed certain and still the people of Britain resolved themselves to fight to the last.

 

The Empire failed the test of nations, and therefore has failed the right to exist by standards upon which people who judge history base the right of a nation to exist. A nation is not defined by what it stands for at it's best times, but at it's worst. At this Empire's worst it was defined by capitulation, betrayal, weakness, cowardice, and consorting with the worst sort of villains.

 

As far as countries that had treaties with Hitler the biggest one I'd name is the USSR, which you listed before as part of Hitler's " two-front " war. At the time this speech was given, Hitler was nearly at the gates of Moscow and it looked as if the USSR itself would topple as well. Before Churchill, Hitler had signed several treaties with Britain ( always involving dismantling other countries without their consent ) however that's part of the point isn't it?

 

All it took, the only difference, was the stance Britain made in the end. When a leader of conviction took the reigns. Under Chamberlain, who is Universally condemned by history, Britain was like the Empire in Skyrim. Under Churchill it wasn't. It's that simple to me, they had a choice, be like Chamberlain or be like Churchill and they decided to be like Chamberlain.

 

If it was wrong when Chamberlain and worthy of universal condemnation then it's wrong when the Empire does it in TES: Skyrim.

 

To defend the latter, is to defend the former, and I can't accept the idea of anyone defending the former. To do so will always lead to a fundamental and irreversible disagreement from me. It really is as simple as that for me.

 

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,

we shall fight on the seas and oceans,

we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,

we shall fight on the beaches,

we shall fight on the landing grounds,

we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,

we shall fight in the hills;

we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Edited February 25, 2013 by Gabryal

[kradus]

But then you're condemning the all empire because you dont agree with its current leader. You know the emperor dies, and another great war is about to unfold. Why would you discard International unity in such a time? Certainly you've heard of divide and conquer.

 

edit: about Churchil, he said many things for morale purposes, as did the emperor when he refused the Thalmor demands. But you didn't actually see britain at it's worse. Maybe Churchil would get real if german troops where marching over half of the Island and killing people. To say that a leader would be defiant to the end even when faced with the death of his people and his kingdom could be true, but I wouldn't want to be lead by a manic who places his personal pride ahead of human life.

Edited February 25, 2013 by kradus

[StormHammer81]

@Gabryal

All it took, the only difference, was the stance Britain made in the end. When a leader of conviction took the reigns. Under Chamberlain, who is Universally condemned by history, Britain was like the Empire in Skyrim. Under Churchill it wasn't. It's that simple to me, they had a choice, be like Chamberlain or be like Churchill and they decided to be like Chamberlain.

If it was wrong when Chamberlain and worthy of universal condemnation then it's wrong when the Empire does it in TES: Skyrim.

Your example of how the British Gov dealt with WWII perfectly fits our argument that the Empire is indeed, not dead, however it is being mismanaged.

So, then according to your own argument where you praise Churchill and condemn Chamberlain, why are you being so hypocritical towards the Empire?

Can we not conclude then, there is a chance by *your* example alone that this Empire is not at fault for how badly it's current Emperor has mismanaged it and therefore, said Empire could recover and do right by a new Emperor?

TMII is going to resign, his Empire will die if he stays on or it will die with him should he resign. And should he resign, by your example, the Empire's fate would be determined by a new Emperor, one who would not make the same mistakes.

The general argument saying, "The Empire is Dead" and/or "Oh it will die just because" is conjecture at best, propaganda at worst. Yes it could die or maybe it won't.

 

The reality is this:

 

The Empire in it's current form is weak and it is dieing due to incompetent leadership resulting in among other things a loss of (5/9) provinces, mis-management of it's finances, external factors such as piracy and fallout from the Great War.

 

Chamberlain has indeed, failed us and, I can see no reason why Churchhill could not step in and save this Empire.

Edited March 2, 2013 by StormHammer81

[Gabryal]

*facepalms*

 

Facts: Britain sold out Czechoslovakia not Poland. It was because of Poland that the war started, because after giving away Alsace-Lorraine and Crechoslovakia, Britain had to draw the line somewhere, so no Britain didn't conceded Poland.

 

That was Chamberlain's Government, not Churchill's.

 

Churchill wanted the US to get involved, but if they didn't they would still have fought. If you read anything at all about Churchill I guarantee that as close as anyone can.

 

Your knowledge of history is dismally depressing

 

Here's a question for you just to see if you know: Who declared war on who? Germany on the USA or the USA on Germany? If you can get that one right without looking in the back of the book I'll have some hope I suppose.

 

There is always a question of whether or not they would have lost, and maybe they would have, and your point would be? Actually I don't even want to know, I don't think I can keep up with the sheer number of inaccuracies and muddled arguments being presented.

 

What I find amazing here is that the two of you are arguing with a retired Army Officer and a professional Historian on topics of Military strategy and History.

 

I think I should take a break from commenting on this thread for awhile.

 

I just want to leave with a few final things.

 

1) Anyone can message me privately to ask questions

 

2) Unless you've looked it up yourself, assume that Stormcloak81 doesn't have clue about what he's talking about, it's not an insult to call someone who's painfully ignorant, painfully ignorant.

 

I truly am beginning to question why I'm putting myself through this at all, I can't even keep track of all the things that you've gotten wrong Stormcloak, it's literally astounding. If you were one of my students I would have failed you out on principle.

 

The part about it all that truly distresses me isn't the errors in logic, the muddled thinking, the lack of responsiveness. I think it's that you feel the need to defend your ignorance. Why not actually learn something?

 

Be an Imperial if you want, from my point of view you couldn't be more wrong but that's my opinion.

 

Just don't be willfully ignorant, god my head hurts. I should never bring analogy into these discussions. I want bigmagy back, he at least knew what the hell I was talking about.

[StormHammer81]

@Gabryal

My reasoning is sound and my intentions are honest.

I want what is best for everyone and I'm sorry friend, while I can sympathize with the Stormcloaks cause, I refuse to receive my orders from a Religious Tyrant / Thug / Hypocrit.

I do not trust Ulfric's motives or his intentions and I do not truly believe in my heart that Ulfric has Skyrim's best interests in mind.

You cannot fight for freedom and justice, then turn around and ABANDON YOUR PRINCIPLES for your own personal ambition whenever you see fit. (MARKARTH, WHITERUN, ELISIF, DARK ELVES)

*Markarth - Took away the Reachmen's freedom, torture, murder, rape, annexation of a peaceful Reach kingdom... to secure his own. Which the whole thing was really a PR campaign just to advance his cause and make the Stormcloaks a known and viable political party in Skyrim.

*Whiterun - Annexation of a neutral hold over a fundamental difference between the two Jarls. He also allowed FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF RELIGION not limited to FREE WORSHIP OF TALOS in his city. Ulfric initiates a challenge to the Jarl and then instead of showing up himself, sends his army, whereas he Jarl Baalgruf was prepared to face Ulfric in a traditionally Nordic deul.

*Elisif - Ulfric challenges then High King Torygg, his "friend" a young man who admired Ulfric, under a banner of truce and friendship, resulting in a deul to the death where Torygg was murdered. Furthermore, Ulfric goes a step further and refuses to allow the Moot to meet, making his country leaderless and placing it in further jeopardy. This alone is TREASON.

*Dark Elves \ Windhelm - A leader should not be judged by how he does in battle alone, his Civic and Social achievements must also be considered. Judging by the condition of Windhelm, the racial tension and outright fear plauging it's streets, it's almost immediately apparent that he, Jarl Ulfric, either refuses or is incabable of administering his job as a Jarl.


If Ulfric cannot do his job as Jarl, if he cannot manage and provide for the people of his one city, if his close friends cannot trust him, if his actions goes against what he professes to represent, then Ulfric Stormcloak should NOT be High King of Skyrim, nor is he High King material.


And I want the COMMUNITY to know and understand, that my post(s) are based on sound reason and my arguments against Ulfric and the Stormcloaks are out of concern for the citizens of Skyrim and Tamriel, well founded on game lore and compassion.


With this being said, it is time for me to choose a side and I have reached a final decision:

Upon my honor I do swear undying loyalty to the Emperor, and unwavering obedience to the officers of his great Empire. May those above judge me, and those below take me, if I fail in my duty.

Long live the Emperor! Long live the Empire!

 

http://static.skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/images/32122-1-1361464638.jpg

Edited March 2, 2013 by StormHammer81

[HeyYou]

The stormcloaks major contention is the clause in the white gold concodat that bans the worship of Talos. The Thalmor KNEW this was going to cause a scism in the empire, that was the plan from the beginning. The civil war in Skyrim plays right into the Thalmors hands.

 

The empire is weak, and dieing.

[Koscheideathless]

To Gabryal
Just a general reply
First of all, No, the Markarth Incident, and the Stormcloak militia was NOT started by the Empire. Igmund the Jarl did it himself, because the Reachmen were all over the place and the Imperials were nowhere to be found. Would you point me to the source that states that Titus Mede II commissioned Ulfric to lead the militia? Because everything I read tells me that while the empire was engaged with the Thalmor, the Forsworn took advantage, and Igmund made a deal with Ulfric

Secondly the comparison with the British Empire, how it would fight till the end, and how the Cyrodillic Empire should have done the same. I think that is in itself a false equivalence, because the circumstances could not be more different. First, Dunkirk was NOT a defeat for the BE, but a great victory. How often could you have an entire army encircled, and then saved at the last moment? And the Battle of Red Circle was a victory for the Empire, albeit a Pyrrhic victory. And since you know everything about Pyrrhus, then you should understand clearly why the Empire had to seize the opportunity to call for a truce. The Empire won, but couldn’t go forward, the Dominion lost, but couldn’t be defeated, Titus Mede had to make that choice.

Of course people would talk about Hammerfell, how they could have pushed the Dominion back to the sea with the help of the Redguards and Nords, but if everyone could predict the future there wouldn’t bad decisions.

 

Next is Chamberlain. I for one sympathize with him. If he intervened early, 2 outcomes. Either Hitler dead, no WW2 and Weimar reinstated, and Germany goes on the slow road of recovery; or of course the more probable one, Hitler dies, no WW2, but Germany enraged, more chaos. England dragged into a perpetual war with Germany. Sound familiar? Think Iraq or Afghanistan. People are enraged that Bush invaded those countries, and dragged the world’s economy with it; but if he had not and Iraq became the next Nazi Germany, people like you would be condemning him for not acting.

Same could be said about, Chamberlain, and Titus Mede II. Hind sight always tells us that they were wrong, but one could only act on all available intelligence, as well as plans of the advisors.
Thirdly, you compared Ulfric to Churchill. Yup you would be right if you were talking about racism. You were making a “what if” scenario, where the BE allied with the Nazis. But you miss the point. Because Churchill did exactly that, just not with Germany .

 

You had no problem with Churchill allying himself with the devil, USSR, to defeat the greater enemy, the Nazis; but you cannot comprehend why Titus would seek peace with the Dominion for the sake of survival.

Forthly, Whiterun was neutral. I think Bulgruff made it quite clear himself. Did you just assume that Whiterun was Imperial just because the Stormcloaks had to invade it, or the Imperials had to defend it, depending on the side you chose? Unless you want to weave in some conspiracy theory, what happened was quite clear. Ulfric wanted Whiterun to be on his side, and Bulgruff to “elect” him as high king, or be removed from the Earldom forcefully. Bulgruff felt pushed to the corner, and resorted to accepting Imperial aid, in return of guaranteeing his position as Jarl. Because Bulgruff would never be forced to elect a racist, ego maniac like Ulfric to be high king.

 

 

Lastly, you might think others are wrong, have errors in logic, or whatever, but that is just because you fundamentally disagree with them. For all you know you might be the one muddled, and insist that they learn from you.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Koscheideathless

[Gabryal]

To My Imperial Friends on the other side of the aisle

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295">

[StormHammer81]

@Gabryal

 

 

Thank you, that was very moving.

 

Now, I have something for you. I am pleased to report that Ulfric Stormcloak has been brought to justice and Skyrim has finally been liberated from the Stormcloaks:

 

Edited March 2, 2013 by StormHammer81

[Gabryal]

To My Imperial Friends on the other side of the aisle

">

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295">

And for you once again, maybe you'll get it this time

Edited March 2, 2013 by Gabryal